Posted on 06/18/2013 9:46:44 AM PDT by Vendome
Freepers!
Feel free to make the case for why the NSA, DOJ, DEA or FBI have any moral, legitimate, lawful, legal or Constitutional right to your private information for any reason given such Accidental or intentional purpose.
Further, make the case when they collect your information why they are entitled to peruse it or store it for (5) five years or even a nanosecond.
I will destroy any case that can be made short of an illegal Supra Constitutional law or ruling such as the FISA Amendment of 2008
They can monitor communications outside the US which don’t involve a citizen of the US.
Nope.
They are investors in Communications equipment manufacturers and service providers.
As such, they have a legitimate claim to access of “Their” investment and right to make certain design elements a condition of their investment.
Fascism baby.
Because it keeps me safe.
The issue is American Citizens.
Couldn’t care less what we do to any other country.
AKA the big-government/big-corporate criminal complex.
Like a business relationship with the Mafia:
You took and now we own you.
Uh, because my Social Democrat Neighbor thinks it’s a great idea?
As far as I am concerned the 1979 Supreme Court ruling that the book keeping add-ons to phone communications (who, where what number called how long - we call it metadata now) has ‘no expectation of privacy’ is horribly stretched in its ruling.
The reason for the existences is obvious on the provider side, and accepted by the consumer side. Both realize it is to log and manage the respective calls and billing. The typical consumer would not accept otherwise, and THUS is not giving his express consent for other than billing purposes.
Just because that capability is there does not mean that it is or should be immediately available to law enforcement. The police still have to get a warrant to get data like that for a crime. But the NSA, does not and the effing government has based their whole argument on this one case, IMO, extremely speciously.
We have certain parts of the intelligence community, ORDERED by the WH to get this by any means necessary, and they COLLUDE with the DOJ citing bullshit cases as justification.
And, as far as the government or a puppet-general from the NSA saying “trust us - we do it by the book” I have just this one thing to say, “What part of that ‘book’ includes the US Constitution?”
“I will destroy any case that can be made short of... [a]...ruling such as the FISA Amendment of 2008”
You can sestroy any arguement except for the one the government is using???? Lotta’ good that does.
The tyrannical government shouldn’t be doing this at all. 4th Amendment.
Start with Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and then explain how Congress does not have the authority to pass such a law.
Because too many in this country have bought into the idea to live in fear. Didn’t the terrorists kind of win on that part. They have many afraid. Now, Big overreach and a direction to key turn tyranny. They can’t fuss about it when it happens.
They either have to profile or collect everyone,s data.
A case can be made that in order to have information on suspected terrorists available, the information needs to be collected ahead of time on everybody. Thus when a warrant is issued they can go to the database and get timely results than if they then had to go supoenae records which may or may not still exist from 50 different organizations.
That said, it’s an incredibily dangerous database for U.S. Citizens and the evidence seems to support that there are insufficient controls that have already led to abuse. And controls are only as good as the Executive’s will to continue them. If the Executive turns tyranical this database is a time bomb for Americans.
It also means that there is information available and it increases the ability of the Executive to black mail gov’t officers. We’ve already seen Lois Lerner of the IRS demanding that a politician not run again under threat of persecution.
They can’t fuss about it when it happens.
I should have added, can’t fuss if people don’t make the government pull back on over reaching. I don’t want to come across as I think we should not have any Intel to watch suspected terrorist. I just don’t think they should be watching my granny and my 90 year old aunts and uncles and my son and my hubby or me and wonder if a camera is on my PC already programmed and by the TV remote box.
Because the Supremes ruled almost 100 years ago that billing data is not your property, it’s the property of the phone company.
Now you may not like, and I may not like, that it has been stretched to cover present cellular communications. Pretty obviously the Constitution could not have anticipated such an issue.
There’s one easy and another much more difficult solution to this problem. Pass a law that prohibits the government from accessing such information without a warrant. Or pass an amendment doing the same.
What I think is not a good idea is expecting the courts to automatically stretch the Constitution to cover our preferred interpretation. Doing this, by the other side, has a LOT to do with the present mess we’re in.
The Founders were smart enough to know that they could not possibly write a Constitution that would cover all future contingencies. That’s exactly why they wrote in the procedures for amending it when needed.
I hope everybody realizes there is no explicit “right to privacy” in the Constitution. It has developed from successive judicial rulings that in many cases bear an uncomfortable resemblance to the “reasoning” by which we wound up with Roe v. Wade. Emanations and penumbras and all that.
Maybe there SHOULD be such a right in the Constitution. Fine, let’s pass and ratify the appropriate amendment.
Agree. No matter the case made, it’s completely unconstitutional.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.